Arthur W. Tifford, P.A. v. Litigation Concepts, L.C.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Arthur W. Tifford, P.A. v. Litigation Concepts, L.C.

89 So. 3d 1072, 2012 WL 2011964, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8880

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 6, 2012·No. Nos. 3D10-2045, 3D10-2044, 3D10-1277·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm, holding that the trial court properly entered final summary judgment in favor of appellees on appellants’ claims for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. See Faro v. Romani, 641 So.2d 69, 71 (Fla.1994) (holding “when an attorney withdraws from representation upon his own volition, and the contingency has not occurred, the attorney forfeits all rights to compensation.”).

We likewise affirm the trial court’s orders denying each party’s motion for sanctions pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2010), finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determinations.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm, holding that the trial court properly entered final summary judgment in favor of appellees on appellants’ claims for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. See Faro v. Romani, 641 So.2d 69, 71 (Fla.1994) (holding “when an attorney withdraws from representation upon his own volition, and the contingency has not occurred, the attorney forfeits all rights to compensation.”).

We likewise affirm the trial court’s orders denying each party’s motion for sanctions pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2010), finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determinations.

Affirmed.

Arthur W. Tifford, P.A. v. Litigation Concepts, L.C., 89 So. 3d 1072, 2012 WL 2011964, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8880 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

89 So. 3d 1072 (Arthur W. Tifford, P.A. v. Litigation Concepts, L.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related